Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:
I mean, really. At what point does someone have to stop and think, hey, maybe the reason I'm having such great conversations with these people is because I agree with them, and not because what they're saying is factually true or morally superior?

Are you actually sitting here and insinuating that if someone can have a calm, reasonable, and polite conversation with an extremist- that it's because they may actually be a Nazi?

I've read two things on Dakka that have made me go "Holy SH** that is insane", and the other one was a guy making crying noises at a poker tournament so a woman would lactate uncontrollably.

This statement is the other one.

Well done, sir, well done.

Did you not know the only reasonable reaction to seeing a nazi is to scream in their face and punch them?

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:
I mean, really. At what point does someone have to stop and think, hey, maybe the reason I'm having such great conversations with these people is because I agree with them, and not because what they're saying is factually true or morally superior?

Are you actually sitting here and insinuating that if someone can have a calm, reasonable, and polite conversation with an extremist- that it's because they may actually be a Nazi?

I've read two things on Dakka that have made me go "Holy SH** that is insane", and the other one was a guy making crying noises at a poker tournament so a woman would lactate uncontrollably.

This statement is the other one.

Well done, sir, well done.

First, I should apologize, since I should have said "sympathize with" rather than "agree with."

Second, don't put words in my mouth. The examples were religious fundamentalists, advocates against gay marriage, and holocaust deniers.

Third, the context was obviously in the case of progressive vs conservative values. It wasn't a situation in which, say, you find yourself talking to a random guy on the bus, have a decent conversation (edit: about something innocous and common, like the weather or the performance of a sports team), and then when he gets up to leave you see the big "KKK 4 LIFE" imprint on the back of his shirt.

 infinite_array wrote:
Hey, I tried bringing it back around to having something to do with gaming. Not much of a bite there.

Same, and I may have misread your other statement- so there's that.

But hey, Anita has a discord. I wonder if there will be 'discussion' there.

 infinite_array wrote:
Having you talk about self reflection is almost funny, really. Maybe you should spend a little time and consider where your own hostilities, prejudices, and sympathies lie.

I've had discussions with atheists and gay marriage advocates from the other side too. I love a good debate. It gives me an excuse to learn about things and expand my world view. Maybe you noticed that every time someone posted a study in this thread, I actually went and read it? And I've had wonderful discussions with Trump supporters, Tea Party members, conspiracy theorists, anarchists, and lots more. I don't have to agree with someone to respect them or understand them.

Heck, I'm pretty darn liberal. In most issues, social, economic, and political, I'm generally on the same side as the progressive movement. I disagree with them pretty fundamentally on a few things, not because I disagree with the premise but with the implementation. And it is because we 95% agree that I want to have an honest discussion with them the most. I want to know how we can both believe that racism is bad, but end up coming out on two completely different ends of the spectrum on how it is to be dealt with. I want to know how the left went from the part of basic rights and liberties to the one that is currently trying to take them away. It wasn't too long ago that we were all boycotting Chick-fil-a in unification, but now they are calling people like me a Nazi and trying to take away my freedoms simply for disagreeing? That's a discussion I want to have. But progressives will not have that discussion for some reason.

 infinite_array wrote:
First, I should apologize, since I should have said "sympathize with" rather than "agree with."

Okay, so- what if I told you that there are quite a few people that still exist today that, no matter how much you disagree with them- or even if they are objectively wrong- that it is still possible to have a discussion with them, ask open-ended questions back and forth, and 'agree to disagree' and walk away without getting super-heated and trying to harm one another?

I can have conversations with Muslims- a religion I disagree with- and be respectful to a respectful person. I've encountered bigots that are the same- and I openly and clearly disagreed with their world view. Also, Communists.

I 'sympathize' with none of them, or rather- at least not their beliefs. Though, I can sympathize with someone who believes that they have been wronged or persecuted- though I may disagree that they have actually been wronged or persecuted: "I'm sorry you felt that way", at a minimum. Empathy, to some degree, is perfectly fine. But that doesn't mean I 'sympathize' with their argument, but rather I can understand the range of emotions they have experienced based on having felt a similar way about something completely different or even opposite.

 infinite_array wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:
I mean, really. At what point does someone have to stop and think, hey, maybe the reason I'm having such great conversations with these people is because I agree with them, and not because what they're saying is factually true or morally superior?

Are you actually sitting here and insinuating that if someone can have a calm, reasonable, and polite conversation with an extremist- that it's because they may actually be a Nazi?

I've read two things on Dakka that have made me go "Holy SH** that is insane", and the other one was a guy making crying noises at a poker tournament so a woman would lactate uncontrollably.

This statement is the other one.

Well done, sir, well done.

First, I should apologize, since I should have said "sympathize with" rather than "agree with."

Second, don't put words in my mouth. The examples were religious fundamentalists, advocates against gay marriage, and holocaust deniers.

Third, the context was obviously in the case of progressive vs conservative values. It wasn't a situation in which, say, you find yourself talking to a random guy on the bus, have a decent conversation (edit: about something innocous and common, like the weather or the performance of a sports team), and then when he gets up to leave you see the big "KKK 4 LIFE" imprint on the back of his shirt.

But again, having a normal discussion about values with a nazi does not require kicking and sceaming.

Edit: fun mental image in my head if Neville Chamberlain screaming "YOU'RE A FETHING WHITE MALE" at Hitler while throwing a big baby tantrum on the floor.

 Sim-Life wrote:
But again, having a normal discussion about values with a nazi does not require kicking and sceaming.

In fact, if you're dealing with what most people are calling 'Nazis' - just a racist /pol/ troll... that's EXACTLY what they want you to do. It's like eating steak in front of a vegan to them.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:
I mean, really. At what point does someone have to stop and think, hey, maybe the reason I'm having such great conversations with these people is because I agree with them, and not because what they're saying is factually true or morally superior?

Are you actually sitting here and insinuating that if someone can have a calm, reasonable, and polite conversation with an extremist- that it's because they may actually be a Nazi?

I've read two things on Dakka that have made me go "Holy SH** that is insane", and the other one was a guy making crying noises at a poker tournament so a woman would lactate uncontrollably.

This statement is the other one.

Well done, sir, well done.

Careful guys Peregrine the troll is going to do his evil leftist technique of getting a thread shut down by posting offensive off topic things to attempt to shut down discussion.

Because he knows he won't be banned.

Peregrine is the one we need to worry about doing that.

the_scotsman wrote:
Careful guys Peregrine the troll is going to do his evil leftist technique of getting a thread shut down by posting offensive off topic things to attempt to shut down discussion.

Because he knows he won't be banned.

Peregrine is the one we need to worry about doing that.

Oh, I'm loving this conversation and hope it continues for weeks. You don't have to worry about that from me.

Dismantling someone's argument is not the same as advocating literal murder and name-calling, but nice try. I give you a 5 out of 10 at the Strawman Olympics.

There's a discussion here, and you're more than welcome to participate. Tell me specifically where you disagree with me.

 infinite_array wrote:
First, I should apologize, since I should have said "sympathize with" rather than "agree with."

Extremists are people too. They are driven by the same basic needs for belonging, comfort, safety, and happiness that we all are. And if you talk with one, you'll quickly realize that their odious views are a direct response to those needs not being met. It's very easy to see how, if you grew up in the same environment or shared the same experiences, you could be tempted by the same ideology. In fact, that's why I have these discussions - to make sure that I'm not an extremist myself. It's always better to get understanding from everywhere it is offered.

Third, the context was obviously in the case of progressive vs conservative values.

I'm not conservative or progressive, and thus don't see the world in such a limited way. I used to hate conservatives very much, but over the past two decades of talking with a bunch of people over the internet, I've really come to understand their world view much more. For instance, understanding the difference between a culture of honor and a culture of dignity really sort of exposes the chief insecurities at the heart of the liberal-conservative divide, and knowing what fundamental insecurities drive them, it is easy to see how they might arrive at different conclusions to the same problems.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Careful guys Peregrine the troll is going to do his evil leftist technique of getting a thread shut down by posting offensive off topic things to attempt to shut down discussion.

Because he knows he won't be banned.

Peregrine is the one we need to worry about doing that.

Oh, I'm loving this conversation and hope it continues for weeks. You don't have to worry about that from me.

Dismantling someone's argument is not the same as advocating literal murder and name-calling, but nice try. I give you a 5 out of 10 at the Strawman Olympics.

There's a discussion here, and you're more than welcome to participate. Tell me specifically where you disagree with me.

Mostly referring to the little "uncontrollable lactation" anecdote. That sounds like the kind of thing you throw into a thread to try and ping moderation and get the last word.

the_scotsman wrote:
Mostly referring to the little "uncontrollable lactation" anecdote. That sounds like the kind of thing you throw into a thread to try and ping moderation and get the last word.

Oh, no- it was actually in this thread, I believe. I could be mistaken.

Lemme see if I can find it.

the_scotsman wrote:
Mostly referring to the little "uncontrollable lactation" anecdote. That sounds like the kind of thing you throw into a thread to try and ping moderation and get the last word.

That video was posted earlier in this thread, a few dozen pages ago.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:
First, I should apologize, since I should have said "sympathize with" rather than "agree with."

Extremists are people too. They are driven by the same basic needs for belonging, comfort, safety, and happiness that we all are. And if you talk with one, you'll quickly realize that their odious views are a direct response to those needs not being met. It's very easy to see how, if you grew up in the same environment or shared the same experiences, you could be tempted by the same ideology. In fact, that's why I have these discussions - to make sure that I'm not an extremist myself. It's always better to get understanding from everywhere it is offered.

Third, the context was obviously in the case of progressive vs conservative values.

I'm not conservative or progressive, and thus don't see the world in such a limited way. I used to hate conservatives very much, but over the past two decades of talking with a bunch of people over the internet, I've really come to understand their world view much more. For instance, understanding the difference between a culture of honor and a culture of dignity really sort of exposes the chief insecurities at the heart of the liberal-conservative divide, and knowing what fundamental insecurities drive them, it is easy to see how they might arrive at different conclusions to the same problems.

I don't want to seem like I'm being instructive, then, but maybe you'd be better served if you used a term other than "progressives"? It's a term generally used for a wide and growing segment of the more liberal side of the population. I'm not sure what might better used to describe people like Sarkeesian and others who do tend to overuse certain terms (Fringe Left?), but "Progressive" certainly isn't it.

I also feel like I wouldn't have misunderstood your position if you hadn't had compared the supposed epistemological ills of "progressives" to three populations that are generally considered hard right leaning. If you had said, "Progressives can't keep up an arguments, but I've had great conversations with religious fundamentalists, atheists, advocates against gay rights, and trans-rights activists," then I would have had a better handle of your positions.

Here it is. One of the most baffling things I've ever read and seen in my entire life.

I'm not joking, this is like a climax from a Jojo's Bizarre Adventure episode.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
OTOH, it goes both ways, with some women wearing low-cut tops to distract their opponent... Should a male opponent complain that he's being harassed by sight of ample decolletage before him?

This actually happened in a poker tournament. One female competitor was wearing a very low cut top and took the lead. In response one of the male competitors start making crying baby noises to trigger her body into a postpartum breastfeeding reflex to make her lactate and she lost her lead. It was weird.

https://www.pokertube.com/video/celebrity-poker-showdown-s05-ep02--part-2

Around 22mins.

But yeah, we need to focus on Sarkeesian and the stuff surrounding her, I'll give you that.

Do you think she'll actually speak to detractors in her Discord, and do you see why people are skeptical of her after raising that kind of money?

I mean, it's like me saying, "Give me money so I can start a Facebook account".

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Here it is. One of the most baffling things I've ever read and seen in my entire life.

I'm not joking, this is like a climax from a Jojo's Bizarre Adventure episode.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
OTOH, it goes both ways, with some women wearing low-cut tops to distract their opponent... Should a male opponent complain that he's being harassed by sight of ample decolletage before him?

This actually happened in a poker tournament. One female competitor was wearing a very low cut top and took the lead. In response one of the male competitors start making crying baby noises to trigger her body into a postpartum breastfeeding reflex to make her lactate and she lost her lead. It was weird.

https://www.pokertube.com/video/celebrity-poker-showdown-s05-ep02--part-2

Around 22mins.

But yeah, we need to focus on Sarkeesian and the stuff surrounding her, I'll give you that.

Do you think she'll actually speak to detractors in her Discord, and do you see why people are skeptical of her after raising that kind of money?

I mean, it's like me saying, "Give me money so I can start a Facebook account".

Her Discord will definitely be a heavily moderated hugbox. I doubt she'll even take part in it. I can't imagine her ego would allow her to talk on a one-to-one level with the lower plebians.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Her Discord will definitely be a heavily moderated hugbox. I doubt she'll even take part in it. I can't imagine her ego would allow her to talk on a one-to-one level with the lower plebians.

Well, like I've said before- demonstrably, she doesn't do well if she isn't reading her script. I honestly think she's just baiting trolls. And the sad thing is... people will go for it hook, line, and sinker. If not, I'm sure dozens of suspiciously brand-new accounts will manifest just to post some pretty blatant and absurd threats. Sort of like Brianna Wu's threats that all oddly seemed to revolve around having sex with her and pleasuring oneself to her images.

I'd love to see her have a sit-down conversation with someone, even a moderate, and debate her position and findings. But actual activists want to do that, not people who are selling a product. Why give someone an opportunity to make your product look defective?

 infinite_array wrote:

I don't want to seem like I'm being instructive, then, but maybe you'd be better served if you used a term other than "progressives"? It's a term generally used for a wide and growing segment of the more liberal side of the population. I'm not sure what might better used to describe people like Sarkeesian and others who do tend to overuse certain terms (Fringe Left?), but "Progressive" certainly isn't it.

Seemed like a better option than SJW. I'm definitely talking about a very specific subsection of the left that is unified in a specific ideology of diversity and oppression. I think SJW is too reductionist, too combative, and too dismissive. They self identify as progressives, at least. I'm not sure what term to use to describe them otherwise.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Seemed like a better option than SJW. I'm definitely talking about a very specific subsection of the left that is unified in a specific ideology of diversity and oppression. I think SJW is too reductionist, too combative, and too dismissive. They self identify as progressives, at least. I'm not sure what term to use to describe them otherwise.

If you're deliberately trying to speak to the negative, I've heard "The Outrage Brigade". You could even use it interchangeably- there's just as much Right Wing Outrage Brigade as there is Left Wing.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Her Discord will definitely be a heavily moderated hugbox. I doubt she'll even take part in it. I can't imagine her ego would allow her to talk on a one-to-one level with the lower plebians.

Well, like I've said before- demonstrably, she doesn't do well if she isn't reading her script. I honestly think she's just baiting trolls. And the sad thing is... people will go for it hook, line, and sinker. If not, I'm sure dozens of suspiciously brand-new accounts will manifest just to post some pretty blatant and absurd threats. Sort of like Brianna Wu's threats that all oddly seemed to revolve around having sex with her and pleasuring oneself to her images.

I'd love to see her have a sit-down conversation with someone, even a moderate, and debate her position and findings. But actual activists want to do that, not people who are selling a product. Why give someone an opportunity to make your product look defective?

I wouldn't expect much to any actual engagement. I expect it will be a space for her and those of like mind to her. I expect that some from the internet will go there to poke and see what happens, which I see as a poor tactic. it will only adds to her strength, as well as here financial gain, by making her seem like a victim. (It's about perception)
Just think many are good people gave her money to set up a free server. They did that because of who they think she is. Take the fuel away from the fire. All she really has is the power given to her.


On the topic of her speaking there. So what, let her tell people who see thing the way she does what the went there to hear.
I'm remembering the Henry Rollins track, Liar. "I tell you things you already know so you can say I really agree with you so much." That's all her speaking event is to me.

 warhead01 wrote:
I wouldn't expect much to any actual engagement. I expect it will be a space for her and those of like mind to her. I expect that some from the internet will go there to poke and see what happens, which I see as a poor tactic. it will only adds to her strength, as well as here financial gain, by making her seem like a victim. (It's about perception).

I'm hoping, honestly- that it becomes quite the lol-farm for people. Individuals will infiltrate, collect posts, and use them for their own ends. It'll be... interesting.

Just think many are good people gave her money to set up a free server. They did that because of who they think she is. Take the fuel away from the fire. All she really has is the power given to her.

Quite so. But while those who gave her money may have good intentions, I would probably not consider them the brightest bunch. In truth, I think it's fair to say you don't want her to speak, but it's a losing battle as long as people are attacking her.

But, fortunately for us... Discord has a pretty reliable means to deal with harassment. And illegal things passed through a discord can actually be traced more easily. So those 'threats', if they're valid- we'll know soon.

We've had 45 pages of people talking about Nazis and some great red Piller chat. Surely this is done now

Well I still have got no suggestion about prominent female industry veterans that could be in that panel.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Well I still have got no suggestion about prominent female industry veterans that could be in that panel.

Elisa Teague and Liz Spain would be my first two. Not sure if they've been there before.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:
I wouldn't expect much to any actual engagement. I expect it will be a space for her and those of like mind to her. I expect that some from the internet will go there to poke and see what happens, which I see as a poor tactic. it will only adds to her strength, as well as here financial gain, by making her seem like a victim. (It's about perception).

I'm hoping, honestly- that it becomes quite the lol-farm for people. Individuals will infiltrate, collect posts, and use them for their own ends. It'll be... interesting.

Just think many are good people gave her money to set up a free server. They did that because of who they think she is. Take the fuel away from the fire. All she really has is the power given to her.

Quite so. But while those who gave her money may have good intentions, I would probably not consider them the brightest bunch. In truth, I think it's fair to say you don't want her to speak, but it's a losing battle as long as people are attacking her.

But, fortunately for us... Discord has a pretty reliable means to deal with harassment. And illegal things passed through a discord can actually be traced more easily. So those 'threats', if they're valid- we'll know soon.

Yes, interesting
As in the Chinese proverb I'm sure.

I think there's a bit more to it that how bright they are. How busy are they how much time do they have , did they just hear something that sounded good to them.There's a thing like that going on that the media exploits with sound bites, same same.
Have you heard of yuri bezmenov? That's a fun one.


I've looked at the convention FB page and it seems you have to pay entry and for a spot at other events. I would have no money to spend on an event I don't wish to attend.
Other people are paying to hear her say things she says that they want to hear. It's economics and she's a capitalist.
I'm struggling to phrase what I want to say about if I want her to peak or not.
She has the right to speak. I have the right to not listen or attend. (I feel this is still inadequate but it is what it is.)
If she were unable to speak I wouldn't cry about it.

What you say about discord servers is very good to hear.

 warhead01 wrote:
What you say about discord servers is very good to hear.

Yes. Now, this has two positive effects:

1- It makes it so that if people ARE harassing her and making threats, they can be swiftly dealt with. Authorities can be given information and threats can be dealt with legally. Absolutely no sane person, hate her or love her, should take issue with this.

2- It makes it so when she makes statements about the threats, people can ask what action was taken and what the results are and there should be something come of that. Unless she elects to take Fem40k's "It's not for your vouyerism" as a cop-out.

On all other points I agree. People are essentially paying for her to validate their feelings, stroke their egos, and reassure them that they're in a bad scary evil world and that Mama 'Nita is here to take care of them. A sucker is born every minute, and just like I told the stripper I dated: I can't be mad if some idiot throws their money at something that isn't genuine. By all means, let them throw heaps of their money at her... and in the end, they'll have to walk out those doors with all of those shoddy ideas in their minds... and then, out there- they'll have to actually stare reality in the face. Hopefully, they'll know better than to find a demagogue to soothe them afterward.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Carnikang wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Democracy dakkagakker! Do you speak it?

Considering the political climate here in America, democracy is being threatened on a fundamental level. And theyre part of the movement, though not the entirety of it.

I agree with Peregrine, partially though. We should not tolerate intolerance in an inclusive, tolerant, and diverse society. Shooting them may go too far, but letting them do as they please to gather and spew vile rhetoric is much too little.

This is exactly what you should do. Let them gather and speak, then counter their arguments with their own and make them look foolish and backwards in public or maybe even change some minds. If you're secure and informed well enough in your beliefs that should be easy enough to do. Driving them underground and forcibly silencing them feeds into their own victim complex, entrenching them further into their own radicalization. I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand.

Without getting too much into US politics, we've seen people double down on their tribalism when informed and ignore some truly heinous gak their candidates do. They even brag about voting specifically to hurt the other side, the one warning them. Your approach just doesn't work.

Honestly, I think this is one of those cases where the average person who has never been one of the untermenschen on the extermination list just doesn't get it, not on a personal level. This goes back to the earlier discussion about how homophobia just doesn't seem like the most important issue when you have the option to opt out of being affected by it. But for the people with the targets on their backs they can't get rid of, it feels a lot more like a life and death issue.

Did you just play the "you've never been oppressed" card on a Celt?

Do people tell you to climb into an oven?

The oppression you have experienced is different, and I don't know what it was like. If you tell me someone is acting to put you and yours in the ground, I'll believe you. But I do know what it is like to have people threaten me or casually bring up their cabal theories or state that Jews can't be trusted, or that I am good with money all because of my ancestry. I know there are groups of people who would gladly stomp my face if they were sure they wouldn't go to jail for it, and they have told me so. It makes the idea of stopping Nazis before they have the profile to protect each other all the more urgent.

So you're playing the "my oppression is more valid than yours" card now? No, nobody tells me to climb into an oven but if me and my partner cross the border and go into Belfast I hear a lot of colourful language that I can't repeat here. There are other forms of oppression and violence on other races or groups that don't involve nazis.

No, I said I was ignorant of your experiences with oppression. I really don't have any idea what you have to deal with. I ordered my sentences poorly, and I came across badly.

However, I also am trying to get across what I've heard and seen and why I feel like waiting until Nazis are so normalized as to be in power before fighting back is very dangerous. For the vulnerable, it may already be too late by then.

While I'm not at Peregrine's level of advocating preemptive violence, I do believe the nazis need to be shut down hard (without escalating to force unless in self defense) as soon as they make themselves known.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
While I'm not at Peregrine's level of advocating preemptive violence, I do believe the nazis need to be shut down hard (without escalating to force unless in self defense) as soon as they make themselves known.

And this, my friend- is why we WANT them to have freedom of speech. Better they're out in the open and visible than hiding. Because the hidden ones are your neighbor, your kids' school bus driver, the local cop, the judge, your insurance agent...

Shut them down with ridicule, counter them with what is correct. Don't fight them- because at the end of the day, they can be Nazis all day long, but the moment you assault them? You get to go to prison with all the other actual Nazis that will use your bodily orifices for their own gratification. I don't care how tough you are, if you think you're going to do well in prison against White Supremacists... well, all I can say is you better hope someone else takes you in other than the 'Brotherhood'. I have an elder cousin in corrections and he can tell horror stories.

Well that's probably enough, we are well a d truly off the rails now.